About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
CSPAN 20
CNBC 19
CSPAN2 12
CNNW 10
FBC 9
MSNBCW 7
CNN 5
MSNBC 3
KQED (PBS) 2
KPIX (CBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 106
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 106 (some duplicates have been removed)
, with the deficit cut by 25% and interest rates at historic lows, does my right honorable friend not agree with me that the opposition plan b for more debt would jeopardize all those achievements? [cheers and applause] >> my honorable friend is entirely right. we are making progress. of course it is tough when there are so many economic headwinds against us, but a million more private sector jobs, a record number of businesses starting up last year, we're on the quite clear, plan b stands for bankruptcy, that's what labour would give us. >> last but not least,up -- ann pruitt. >> a universal health care is what the overwhelming majority of parish people want, something which i remain firmly committed to. however, there are claims about nurses who fail to show care and compassion to their patients. what exactly will the prime minister do about that? >> the honorable lady speaks for the whole house and the whole country in raising this issue, and i know how pain. it must have been -- painful it must have been with what he's witnessed with her or own family. i am, as she is, an enormous fan of the po
were to run $600 billion deficit for the next 10 years, by the end of that, the debt -- it would lower our gdp forecasts. if we were to cut with the fiscal consolidations that $600 billion deficit to $300 billion, we would be buying future generations gdp growth in the long run. by about half a% per year. it is ultimately a question of what kind of world we want to live in 10 years from now. if you want to look like the way europe has been growing, we will have a small consolidation, such as the small consolidation proposed by the president. if you want to have the kind of growth that i hope we can have with a bigger consolidation, that one is being proposed by speaker boehner. >> thank you. >> i would like to focus on something that is probably more of interest to the economists and ordinary people. let's talk about ratios. what i heard you lay out, dr. zandi, was more of an ideal situation. they get you at roughly at $3 trillion. deficit-reduction over the course of 10 years. you went on to add the $1.20 trillion over last year's negotiations on the debt ceiling. the negotiations ove
of the middle class -- catch up with my slides. there we go. the deficit and debt will improve as 34%. but the one thing they are certain is that taxes will increase. and in the next four years how it affected you think the federal government will be on each of the following issues. we read a list of these issues, we rotated those. this is how it basically stacks up. ensuring long-term future of entire programs such as social security and medicare, 65%. 64% creating jobs, 64% improving public education, growing the economy, creating a business environment that allows for innovation. lowering the federal deficit actually false down to 40. not as much confidence there as a part on the other side. we been said the training faces a number of challenges including but not limited to large budget deficits, national debt, slower economic recovery, high unemployment, deep political divide on many issues. do you believe we will overcome these challenges in the foreseeable future as we've done in the past, or do you think these are unique set of challenges that are so serious that we might not
would be good? >> we have an enormous deficit problem in the united states. nobody's dealt with it since bill clinton was president of the united states. there are a number of things we're going to have to do in order to meet our deficit. we're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending. one of the areas we must cut spending is defense. there hasn't been serious cuts in defense in 30 years. the defense industry is well positioned. they have plants in something in over 300 districts. there's a lot of bipartisan defense spending. for example, the defense authorization bill that just passed yesterday in the senate gave the pentagon $17 billion more than they asked for. so to think that any industry or any taxpayer or any group of people who depend on government spending can be exempted from the serious problem that we have that's caused by this deficit is a mistake. everybody is going to have to pay for this. >> dawn, right or wrong, the defense industry has this reputation of being bloated, overcharging. are we at a point where we could afford to make cuts in defense spending to tr
republican members of the house and the senate speak out on the need or a deficit approach that includes raising taxes on wealthy individuals and to moving right away to ensure that 98% of families do not race a tax increase. we need to look -- do not face a tax increase. we need to look at history. what we saw in the 1990s and 2000s, there was no relationship between lower marginal tax rates for the wealthiest among us an economic growth. first during the clinton administration, the top marginal tax rate was raised on the wealthiest individuals and the economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. it added more than 22 million jobs. during the following eight years, the top marginal rate dax tax rate was lower, but economy never regained its strength from the reviews decade. middle-class families are vulnerable when the recession began at the end of 2007. i hope this hearing is helpful not just in this hearing, but across this country to people who are watching and waiting for congress to act. i will say more at the end about some of our members who are leaving. it is -- it has been
situation to be in. >> as the conversation shifts really to the bottom line in the deficit. at the end of the day the whole thing is about -- it's optical illusions and face saving for republicans. whether it's the notion they may not vote yes but just present, which is complete smoke and mirrors or the fundamental argument which is closing loopholes is not a tax increase. of course it is. at the core this is about asking americans to pay more americans to the federal government. this is just -- it's -- bill clinton called it kabuki theater. it's a way for republicans not to be ashamed and walk back the ideological core they've run on for the past few years. >> if president obama is able to come out and say i'm going to support getting rid of tax ducks for charitable organizations, hospitals, universities, religious organizations, i want to get rid of that tax deduction f he puts his finger -- his hand anywhere near that decision, he's going to be a loony toon every hospital, church, philanthropic in the united states, from the rockefeller down to the littlest catholic charity will fig
money, and then on everybody else. not so he can lower the debt or the deficit, but so he can spend to his heart's content. for months, the president has been saying that all he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday, he finally revealed that that is not really is true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he is really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this is not about getting a handle on deficits or debt or him. it is about spending even more than he already has. why else would you demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we consider giving a president who has brought us four years of trillion dollar unchecked deficits of 30 to borrow? he is the last person who should have borrowing power. the only way we will cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. now the president wants to remove that to cut all together. of cou
deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week. can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of count offer and we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit? >> the phone call was pleasant but was more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday were more of the same. it's time for the president if he's serious to come back to was a count offer. >> the jobs record indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. if no deal happens -- [inaudible] . why take such a risk when the job numbers are improving. >> because increasing tax rates will hit many small businesses that produc
, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we
this morning. you made a comment that you did not believe anybody was interested in solving this deficit problem. that about knocked me out of my chair. i need you to explain to me and the rest of the people watching why you said that anthony g. to -- and i need you to expound on that. i will take my answer off the air. please ask mr. reid to not to be such an obstructionist and sit down and listen. have a great day. guest: imitate a few days for that message out to get through from me. there's a lot of concern about budget deficits. in the period after the downturn, budget deficits for in a range of 10% of the entire gdp, the entire economic output of the u.s. they have come down a little bit. economists think to be sustainable, budget deficits have to be in the range of 3% of economic output or a lower. the focus of this effort to reduce deficits now is on getting them, in the federal budget deficit to the range of 3% or so. that is what i mean when i say policymakers are not trying to get rid of the budget deficits. given the economic weakness, a little bit of deficit spending is pro
of the tenure period the deficit to gdp ratio would be under 1%. succumbing you would solve the deficit problem. estimate under 1%? the percentage of your debt as the deficit to the gdp. the deficit to gdp. a deficit to gdp. now, we don't want to get there that we. the same way we don't want to go over the fiscal cliff. in other words, the fiscal cliff is a big austerity. we get $7 trillion in the deficit reduction over the last ten years. but you don't do it the way we want to do it. when it comes to the baseline, we have to work together as part of an agreement to get the right baseline but that doesn't mean it is not for real world deficit reduction. it is. does it mean that it's better than the current law? maybe not. but there is an agreement that in the fiscal cliff is not the best way. >> we could add the baseline. the deficit to gdp. >> you said the deficit. >> you look at the current line baseline and get under 1% of deficit to gdp. >> seven years and 7 trillion of debt reduction. if anybody wants to read more about, please look at that space on what it takes. i thank you all for being
. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." >> wow! i've never seen anything like this. >> when disaster strikes sometimes the only way out is to look within. current tv digs deep into the determination and escape. "trapped" experience the drama. back to back to back. >> hold on mates! >> catch the "trapped" mini-marathon saturday starting at 1 eastern. on current tv. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. get irresistibly clean and fresh carpets in your home with resolve deep clean powder. the moist powder removes three times more dirt than vacuuming alone while neutralizing odors for a clean you can see, smell and really enjoy. don't just vacuum clean. resolve clean. [ singing christmas carols in background ] aunt sally's singing again. it's a tradition honey. [ singing christmas carols ] mmmm. [ female announcer ] make new traditions with pillsbury grands! cinnamon rolls. [ f
. tea party 2, the sequel. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [ male announcer ] red lobster's crabfest ends soon. hurry in and try five succulent entrees like our tender snow crab paired with savory garlic shrimp. just $12.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. and introducing 7 lunch choices for just $7.99. salads, sandwiches, and more. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth
to hearing today from the experts that we have before us today on how to reduce the deficit while protecting middle income families. as we enter the holiday season, americans should not have to face the uncertainty that many will face with regard to their taxes. there is no reason that middle income families should go into this holiday season without knowing whether their taxes will go up next year. last year, democrats and republicans work together to cut nearly $1 trillion of spending. now we need to continue that bi-partisan work to cut more spending, and to bring in additional revenues. if congress fails to reach an agreement under the budget control act of 2011, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will take place between 2013 and 2021. republicans and democrats agree that indiscriminate across-the- board cuts is not the right and to do at this time in our nation's history. if we trigger the automatic spending cuts and tax increases, gross margin bottom will fall by half a percentage point. we will reverse the hard-fought gains over the past few years. we cannot afford to go backwar
there will be a benefit, which means we do not have these deficits. in the fullness of time, whether a struggle last summer was worth it, if we have the spending cuts and deficits are lower, it might have higher economic growth in the long run because we went to that struggle last year. >> your position is that we should be ready to go through that struggle again and to call upon the national debt is necessary in order to enforce spending limits? >> that, of course, is not my position. we should never default on the national debt. the politics of debt reduction, which you on the better than me, are very difficult. i am not a political expert. if there is something we need to do that helps deficit reduction occur, i am not willing to stop process. >> you are saying defaulting of the national debt might be something we need to do now and then? >> no, sir. we do not default last summer. >> we did not. but we might in january of february. is it your position that we should be willing to default on the debt if that is necessary in order to force spending cuts? >> i would not be willing to default on the
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
with the president and other ceo's to discuss the impending crisis. we even published their own study on the deficit, copies of which are available here today. we look forward to continuing this conversation, keeping the dialogue on going for the next month is critical if we're going to solve this problem -- and we think our panel will be very enlightening in terms of what the issues are. so, al, with that i will turn it over to you and the panel. we look forward to reproductive hour. thank you very much. >> can everybody hear? i welcome you all to bgov -- if you do not know as much about it as you want, i invite you to stay, because it really is a fabulous place. we do have an all-star panel. i will start with my left, which is where bob corker says i always start. tim pawlenty, former governor of minnesota. i wrote that i thought that if he could get the nomination he would have been the strongest republican presidential candidate. i was absolutely right -- we just could not figure out how to get there from here. tim is now the head of the financial services round table, a job he took just about a
repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of having the will to do it, the programs are out there. compromise can be made around the streamlining of regulations to make sure that we are putting people back to work. if chris christy and barack obama can get -- chris cristie and barack obama can get together on that, and i know what's transpired and how the impact of our infrastructure has taken place along the eastern seaboard, it's something we ought to be able to rally around immediately. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it
. >> republicans frequently argue it's critical to get a handle on the deficit before the u.s. becomes like greece. there is a terrible economy with 26% unemployment highest in europe, almost no job opportunities for young people frequentenly lead toro riots in the streets. here is leading democrat is suggesting cutting spending too quickly is a real problem. >> the european community now is concerned about all the austerity. there are many, many things you can do to reduce debt. but still have a stimulus aspect of the economy. >> experts though say europe's us aer the city a drag on the economic growth because it relies too much on taxation while failing to reign in the expansion of government. that would seem to back up a republican theme in the fiscal cliff argument. >> if we raise taxes on the top two rate, a million small businesses who employ 25% of the work force it will cost us over 700,000 jobs and reduce economic growth, lower take home pay and those things. that is a bad scenario. >> the league negotiator on the republican side of the table facing mr. obama says raiding taxes on upper -
. it is also the excesses. look at the road we are on. a trillion dollar deficit every year. a debt crisis on the horizon. debt on this scale is destructive on so many ways. one of them is that it draws resources away from private charity. even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will, unless we do something very soon. when government finances collapsed, it is the most vulnerable who are the victims, which we are seeing in europe. many feel they have nowhere to turn. we must never let that happen here. and election has come and gone. the people have made their choice. policy-makers still have a duty to choose between ideas that work and those that do not. when one economic policy after another has failed our working families, it is no answer to expressed compassion for them or create government programs that offer promise but do not create reforms. we must come together to advance new strategies for the the people out of poverty. let's go with what works. looking around this room at the men and women who are carrying legacy, i know we are answering the call. this cause is right.
to create jobs, to reduce the deficit, and again have fairness. this is the heart of the 3459er -- matter that is holding us here. as the public watches what is this about? this is about the $250,000 line that the president said in the campaign that he would honor and that that legislation today brings to bear. i urge my colleagues out of 435 members of the house, we only need a couple dozen republicans to sign the discharge petition. each one of them holds the key to a $2,000 tax cut for the middle class. either sign the petition, urge the speaker to bring the bill to the floor, or explain to your constituents why you do not want them to have this $2,000 tax break if they are -- for 100% of the american people. please sign the discharge petition. let's get this done this week. we could bring this bill up under unanimous consent. the message would be clear to the american people. we heard you in the campaign. be fair. do something that works. work togetha >> today, the house democratic caucus chairman charge republicans to protect the middle class from a tax increase. they spoke to report
. not a driver of the deficit but, hey, cut that. one more specific. preserve the bush-era tax rates for income over $250,000. it's not a tax increase for everybody who earns over $250,000. it's only the income over $250,000 that would get additional taxes if the bush-era rates went away and the president's proposal was passed. but, no, they want to preserve -- totally preserve tax cuts for income over $250,000. they want to preserve the reduced capital gains rate and dividends rate which principally who ben pets, who else, millionaires and billionaires. now -- benefits, who else, millionaires and billionaires. they did have the jay wellington wimpy plan. you remember him? popeye. i will pay you for a hamburger today. unspecified tax loopholes. we will lower the tax rates for the people on the top. but they'll raise over $800 billion. the ability to deduct the interest on their home mortgage, do they want to take that away? probably. got to come from something pretty big. they don't want to touch the billionaire, millionaire job creator class. now, you know, that's a pretty interesting position
by market opinion. we'll take stock of britain's progress towards deficit reduction, this ahead of the chancellor's autumn statement. senior fellow for international economics. will the numbers live up to the expectations. meanwhile, over in ghi narks the mainland's factories are crank out more goods at the fastest pace in month. >> chinese factories appear to be recovering. the hsbc pmi, a private gauge of manufacturing, and the government's official pmi, both show a steady improvement for the industry in november. the hsbc pmi final reading came in at 50.5, the quickest expansion in over a year. the industry saw a pick up in new orders as well as stronger exports thanks in part to christmas demand. the concern is about the the unevenness of the recovery. the sub indices for employment as well as small and medium sized companies ticked downwards and that suggested to some that the recovery is mainly led by investment in state-owned enterprises. a bigger worry is about the outlook for external demand especially in the united states. people here are worried about the fiscal cliff
intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows what may happen from this point to that point. as far as her role as a democrat, i think by working along with
of payments deficit remains petroleum, and to increase our g.d.p. by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. so thank you very much and i think we can sit down now or -- yeah. >> thank you. give us a moment to take our seats. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, our panel discussion is about to begin, featuring senator lamar alexander, senator roy blunt, and our moderator, christine romans. >> can you hear me now? there we go. good morning, rn. -- all right. so i'm a lazy moderator. i've warned everyone. we want to get the ball rolling and talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country, and the future of transportation and america's national security with regards to energy. but i want to make sure that all of you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and then ask another question. i want this to be a discussion, and i'll steer it. everyone agree? do we all agree? wonderful. let me start first with fred. nice to see you again. >> good to see you. >> you've heard the findings of the report,
the deficit we have. the truth is, if you want to balance the budget, which i do, you have to have increased revenues and you have significant spending cuts. and you have said many times on this program that raising taxes on rich people is not enough to deal with the deficit. you are right. the truth is, the best thing we could do is go over the fiscal cliff. we have the same tax rates that we have when bill clinton was president. significant cuts in defense and also significant human services can you tell us. >> katie, let me ask you, before you respond to what governor dean is saying. there is logic to what howard dean is saying. i don't happen to agree with it. but i know where he's coming from. katie, let me ask you this -- katie can't hear me. we'll wait for her to get back hooked in. howard, what about the notion that i'm posing tonight -- i've said this a few times -- republicans better be careful. they're not going down your road and the democrats aren't going down your road. you have middle class tax cuts for the democrats and it sometimes sounds to me as an old reagan conservative
of crisis, essentially. yet not all numbers are good. if you look at the deficit, high, much higher in the u.s. than in the euro zone for instance. if you look at debt, much higher than many countries in the euro zone, including spain, germany, france. yet, the united states of america is able to borrow at the lowest rate in pretty much its whole recorded history. so you have a very, very diverse landscape at the moment, but certainly one that could be significantly improved, or worsened by the situation that we have concerning the fiscal cliff, the fiscal deficit and the debt of the country, which are three topics that can be addressed now on the comprehensive and efficient fashion. >> in the fiscal cliff negotiation. so what should this mean? because i think i could interpret any given number to say, oh, that means we shouldn't touch taxes for the upper brackets because the economy still needs as much money as it can have in it. or i could argue, oh, this means that we need more stimulus to keep the jobs going, or i could look at the debt and say, oh, this means we need to cut spending. so
they erase the trust deficit, every time they do it, they make it harder to do the big stuff. >> ken, notwithstanding the problems whef outlined in this conversation and the problems coming from washington, there is some economic renaissance going on. we've got low energy prices, manufacturing input. this housing boom with more interest rating here to stay for a couple of years. is there enough that can happen in this economy to off set what's happening? >> we can't ignore them. i wish i could say that. if they blow it, there's nothing we can do, but i think the risks are becoming more balanced where things like the housing recov recovery, consumer debt coming down are start tog offer the possibility where growth might be a little stronger. although on the other hand, the europe and many things you mentioned, all these uncertainty mentioned it could be lower. we're less vulnerable than we were, but if they don't strike a deal, i think they will, they may go over january 1st so the republicans can say taxes went up even though they give in on the tax hikes for the 2%. >> stay where yo
. >> here's the key. i don't think they can do a two-step deal unless we agree to long-term deficit reduction. the uncertainty will remain. that is in a sense, kicking the can down the road. and that is the worst outcome. >> here's what you can do. you can come up with an agreement on the big framework of an overall deal before want fiscal cliff. how big is the deal going to be? how much in revenues? how much are we going to do with entitlements and then it has to go through the committee of jurisdiction how to do tax reform right and health care right. you need to come up with a top line parent of the deal and make sure it's big enough to fix the problem. one of the concerns i have is start negotiating down and down and down and not really fix the problem and there's no impetus to finish up. >> they have to scale back the cliff, the tax increases and spending cuts. the second is the debt ceiling. and the third thing is the path to fiscal sustainability, the long-term deficit reduction, tax reform, reforms to the entitlement programs that get to us a stable g.d.p. in the future. and
accomplish something. if you go back to before bush tax cuts, three quarters of the deficit is gone. it was supposed to sunset two years ago. when is a good time to let those things sunset? >> you're right, there's never a good time. >> maybe do something with the sequester, but let the tax cuts expire. >> although i have to say at this time it's too much i think in terms of the tax increase. >> we never want any pain. >> you're right. and we do need to get our fiscal house in order. but again, this is why the idea would be to come up with a longer term plan where you could scale some of these things in and you have to come up with a plan that you'll stick to, otherwise you get into this where -- >> we never stick to anything. if we get another deal that is toothless and -- >> the markets will become even more skeptical because we've seen this before. but i have to say two things. i don't necessarily buy into the deal that there's a fiscal slope. i have to say on the tax side, one of the things we keep talking about is the amt. boy, that's something that will -- >> howard goes on an
play special interest dig in. until they erase the trust deficit, every time they do it incrementally they make it harder to do the big stuff. >> notwithstanding the problems in this conversation and notwithstanding problems from washington, there is some economic renaissance that's brewing under the surface here. we have an energy boom going on, low energy prices. we have manufacturing output increasing in this country. we have the housing boom with low interest rates to stay for a couple of yearses. is there enough that could happen that could offset what's going on in washington? can we grow our way out of this? >> we can't ignore them. if they blow it, there is nothing we can do. the risks are becoming more balanced where things like the housing recovery, consumer debt coming down are starting to offer the possibility where growth might be stronger although it could be lower. it's more balanced. i think they will strike a deal. they may go after january 1 so the republicans can say taxes went up. now we're cutting taxes though they give in on the tax cuts for the 2%. >> stay where
the economy. most of the deficit we have today is a symptom of how the economy is and is providing a useful product by injecting demand into the economy, and that is why we are still constrained. host: joseph and is on the democratic line. caller: while this money is turned over to the states on behalf of the employ unemployedw much of that is kept by the state's tax hos? to the states to give that money back to the federal government if it is not paid out? once you open up a claim, just because you have got to clean open, you have $4,000 in your account -- massachusetts, you might have $15,000 in your account. that money, if you do not dried out, the state keeps it, i believe. -- draw it out, the state keeps it, i believe. guest: i am not sure how that would be handled. the difference between what is happening in the state fund, which is state-funded, and the federal reimbursement, i believe the federal reimbursement only goes to the states after they pick up the money. guest: that is my understanding as well. i did nothing states are able to keep money that is not disbursed to the unemplo
balanced, responsible ways to reduce our deficit next week. we can reform our tax code next year. but we must give economic certainty to the middle class now, today. democrats agree, independents agree, and the majority of republicans agree, mr. president, and the american public agrees by a huge margin. even dozens of c.e.o.'s from major corporations whose personal taxes go up under our plan emphatically agree. the only people who aren't on board are republicans in congress. but now even they're crying out for compromise. i only hope my friend, john boehner, is listening. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday afternoon came to the floor and offered president obama's proposal on the fiscal cliff to show t
progress. britain started with a large deficit, but we're getting it down. >> you've drawn criticism about the lack of supporting growth. when will we see measures that booth the long term growth of the economy. >> i think you see two sorts of measures. big structural reforms to education and welfare, but also yesterday changes to our tax regime. so we now have one of the lowest corporation tax rates of any major economy in the world. we've just cut it so that it will be 21%, much lower than our competitors. and we've also greatly increased the allowances for small and medium sized firms so they can invest and expand. so where we've been able to help businesses, we've absolutely done that, and we've had very positive reaction from the business community. >> how concerned are you about the aaa rating and the risk that we continue to drift, still need to cut more and boost growth? >> well, we've got to go on commanding the confidence of the world that we can deal with our debts. that is reflected in the very, very low interest rates that we get at the moment for gilts. and of course that's t
economy. we need to show the world we can get our economy under control, reduce the deficit, and begin to show leadership in various areas of new technology that demonstrated here to the rest of the world. kohl will always be there. there's lots of work there. all the sales will help, i think, of leverage our capability and give us more options. >> let me bring you in. 92% of american transportation is run on petroleum. with this new landscape for energy production of, how are we doing on diversifying different kinds of things that are running our transportation? >> so far, it is going slow. something that was deeply focused on was something note senator alexander said earlier. we need to find more and use less. i think you're asking about the use less part. the extension of the changing fuel efficiency standards was one thing, but we believe fervently in the need to diversify away from using petroleum for transportation and given that it represents 70% of our use of petroleum to begin with. with the change in technology and the access to so much homegrown natural gas, we can use that
, reduce the deficit, and begin to show leadership in various areas of new technology that demonstrated here to the rest of the world. kohl will always be there. -- coal is always going to be there. there's lots of work there. all the sales will help, i think, of leverage our capability and give us more options. >> let me bring you in. 92% of american transportation is run on petroleum. with this new landscape for energy production of, how are we doing on diversifying different kinds of things that are running our transportation? >> so far, it is going slow. something that was deeply focused on was something note senator alexander said earlier. we need to find more and use less. i think you're asking about the use less part. the extension of the changing fuel efficiency standards was one thing, but we believe fervently in the need to diversify away from using petroleum for transportation and given that it represents 70% of our use of petroleum to begin with. with the change in technology and the access to so much homegrown natural gas, we can use that and we can also use the development
and supporting unspecified r revenue hikes to help cut the deficit. and big business resigned to higher taxes. here is lloyd blankfein. >> we had to lift up the marginal rate. >> norquist's response? >> some of these people have had impure thoughts. no one pulled the trigger and voted for a tax increase. >> to be sure, norquist is still raking in big bucks. according to open secrets.org, he shelled out almost $14 million to defeat democratic opponents in this past election cycle. >> we've run ads to let people know who has taken the pledge and who hasn't. we'll do phones into letting people know who is taking the pledge. >> norquist's big backers are republican operatives, cross roads gps, the super pac led by kingpin karl rove and the center to protect patient rights. closely tied to the ultra conservative cook brothers. they account for a majority of the budget and there's no sign that they're running scared. norquist truly believes that the best way to grow the economy is to tame big government. he told me recently he will be vindicated no matter how many politicians break the pledge. what
overwhelming the deficit story was at that point. you know, you look at that administration. the coming in, just no one thought they could do anything. it's not unlike the conversations we're having now. and they went in, they did the deal, president bush had to shift from read my lips to as only he could put it, read my hips. and it was good for the country, it created a political dynamic that cost president bush the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of cou
. a long-term debt and deficit problems, and these are the folks who have to fix it. how close are they? >> i think we're going over the cliff. >> we can't sit here and try to figure out what works for them. >> we look forward to the time when they are specific. >> they need to be more specific. >> they have to be willing to come to the table with specifics. >> we've not had any discussion and specifics with this president about the real problem. >> we need a response from the white house. we can't sit here and negotiate with ourselves. >> i will not play that game. >> further apart than ever. you've heard endless arguing about higher taxes on the rich. let's set that aside and talk about the sequester the budget wonk word for a thing that will touch every american. $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts over the next decade, 100 billion next year alone, half in defense and half in non-defense, defense programs cut by 9.4% across the board and non-defense programs 8.2%. agencies are being told to identify the cuts. how will you feel them? fewer food inspections are likely. cdc budget cu
to meet his target of eradicating the federal deficit by 2015 as well as securing a fall to gdp ratio. also expected further pressure with a cut to its growth forecast. steve is braving rather inclement british winter weather outside the houses of parliament. >> lovely. >> i know you like it. how much is it going to be raining on george osbourne's parade? >> it's going to rain on his parade. you just nailed it, ross. three things which are going to come up today, which he has very little control over. one is that obr reckoning on the uk economy. thought only back in march it was going to grow -- pain a negative growth for the year. next year they thought it was going to be 2% growth. it's probably only going to be 1%. in terms of those two targets you mentioned, eradicating the structural deficit in a five-year period, that's going to have another couple of years. >> right. now, there we go. you can see jim there in egypt. i wonder whether we should just go as we've decided to cut to him or maybe we can bring steve back. right. we'll try and reestablish steve. we will be going to jim
to reduce the deficit. jenna: interesting the president is saying he was speaking off the you have cuff, no teleprompter there. he's speaking about how he's rooting on american business. pointed to a couple of aspects much the economy, improvement in consumer confidence and housing as well. he was going to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff and that's something we've all been talking about recently, and what it means for us right now and the year ahead. we also have other business news. we'll get back to the president by the way if and when we get that feedback. he will be taking questions from the audience there of business leaders as gregg mentioned. elizabeth mcdonald ever the fox business network is standing by list toning some of what the president had to say about the economy. liz, can you place it in context about where our economy is right now. >> reporter: the president just now was placing it in the -- the economy in the broader context of what is going on in the world, mentioning asia, mentioning europe, and then he turned to what was the most important part of the spee
control. i show ultimately he controlled inflation by refusing to monetize the budget deficit. the problem began october 79 to drive down inflation from 12% down of 4% by 1982 it was down at 4% but the final victory for interest-rate after congress passed a balanced budget amendment called the gramm-rudman go the proposed draconian cuts in government spending less congress passed a balanced budget. sound familiar? one of the sponsors of the bill said it was a bad idea. yet only after gramm-rudman was passed then it climbed below the 10% level they had remained above the paul volcker first six years at the head of the central bank. what chartered the unprecedented legislation? just before past the late senator john heinz uncovered hidden agenda in the paul volcker plan. this so important i am going to reenact the conversation. ready? >> mr. chairman we have agreed the deficit is bad. but in my experience with congress is anything to go by, there will have to be a crisis to fix it. my question is, a you prepared to bring about the necessary crisis the year continued restrictive monetary poli
they will not increase the debt ceiling now $16 trillion and due to expire in february without more deficit reduction. >> history shows the only major deficit cutting deals we ever do around here, ever, comes after debates over the debt ceiling. it may be a good idea if you don't care about the debt, but it's a non-starter for those of us who do. >> reporter: public opinion generally is on the president's side, but republicans in the house are not paralyzed or perilous, more unified behind speaker boehner than a year ago. why is this important? the white house is beginning to notice and now believe there is a deal boehner can find the stroets pass it. >> an idea what's really at stake. rebecca jarvis has a look how the government spends money and how it could spend less. rebec rebecca, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. >> the question comes up in terms of the money that we're talking about in raising the rate. how much is it that the republicans are objecting to? >> if you look at that $250,000 number, if you were to raise taxes on everybody making $250,000 or more in the country that would ra
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 106 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)